Skip to main content

About this Show

The Communicators

News/Business. People who shape the digital future.

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 91 (627 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

New York 2, Michael Paul 2, Michael Powell 2, La Carte 1, Google 1, Rfs 1, Lynn 1, I.p. 1, Nirvana 1, Facebook 1, Metta Data 1, Warner 1, Hbo 1, Us Is Lynn Standon 1, Cisco 1, Yankees 1, Amazon Or Netflix 1, Lynn Standon 1, Jeff Buick 1, Charles Clark 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    The Communicators    News/Business. People who  
   shape the digital future.  

    December 10, 2012
    8:00 - 8:30pm EST  

8:00pm
there have already been tendered 12 cases that have been prosecuted in that regard. it's not to say it happens everywhere or everybody does it, but there is a system that is awash in 15-20000000 contract actions your and a ton of money, including camino medical system. >> host: and we will leave it there. thank you for an interesting, informative conversation. >> on c-span2 tonight national cable and tele-communications association president talks about the future of television on the communicator's followed by a discussion of a latino group. it ..
8:01pm
i would observe the dramatic shift from hardware to software-centric systems. the minute you are able to do more on software rather than proprietary hardware, the full creativity of safety ware engineering comes into play. that's come to television. when you ask the consumer what is the tv experience in i home, they'll talk about a box on their remote control and they
8:02pm
don't like it. the functions will be migrated into soft war rather than hardware wal-mart and you'll get faster innovation cycles. so companies like time warner and comcast can integrate overnight, not over the course of a hardware replace. , and then you see the other great trend ushered by by mobile and the apps. and soft that's can deliver new and intriguing experiences, taking advantage of the premium con content we love and also the powerful information pipe we're able to marry with that, and i hope creative minds will combine to create revolutionary new kinds of television watching experiences. >> host: jeff buick of time
8:03pm
warner predicted that most channel will be like hbo. subdescription based, you'll be able to watch, almost à la carte. he didn't say à la carte. >> guest: i don't think he would. that means many different things to many different people. what it means, which i think is correct, is that people will have a very, anytime, anywhere device. my life as a child of television enwe my show is on at 7:30 and i'm angry with my bauer because we're out shopping and if we don't get back i'm goes to mess it and not have any ability to catch up to it or see it again. i can remember that anxiety. when are we getting home? no child today has that experience, first of all, already. but the new dimension that's going to come into that is the devices. more than just the traditional
8:04pm
set in the home but the ability to get to these other things, which is why you see people talking about software and ip, meaning if i can speak the language of awe computing devices and i can import my experience to computing guys that will give the consumer more power to choose time, place, manner. i love homeland. i heft seens's episodeend. i heard people tack about it. but i'm picking and choosing when i see it. redskins were on monday night: -- go skins -- i much preferred to see that. but tonight, slower night, might one-half itch it to and that's what a dvr does. when you start to have the ability to command content more fully, as i think jeff is talking about, things will look a lot more like that. what i don't necessarily agree with as a tv watcher, more than a policy analyst, i think people still love discovery. i don't mean the change.
8:05pm
i mean the ability to find surprises. everybody month or every year, i giggle a little bit about some show that people are suddenly talking about. but i don't think you could have ever imagined choosing. if you come to me and say, mike, i want you to choose honey boo-boo, or the show with the dark guy 0, a certain food channel network, i don't think if i had to predetermine that was my preference i would have ever picked them. but the ability to stumble on them, or to hear people talking about them and let me go into an environment and go kind of dabbling around in that? sort of like honey boo-boo and now i'm watching it. i think that's a huge part of the american television experience and i think it gets sold short when we get tech know ecstatic, taking about anytime, anywhere, any how, and americans
8:06pm
live passivity and being able to roam around the tv jungle. >> host: also joining us is lynn standon, senior editor tell communications reports. >> guest: how important role do you think the media will play in connecting with your tv experience down the road? >> guest: that's a great question. if you think about social media, it's just conversation. television has always been about conversation. it's not always been about, that moment you're watching it. the intimate pleasure you get, the credits roll on your favorite show, you have an immediate emotional enjoyment. what do you want to do? i want to call my sister and see what she thought about the final scene. i have been doing that for 30 years. when you go to work the next day, i don't know.your offices, one of the first things that happens at staff meetings, did you see so and so last night?
8:07pm
the conversation is an enormous component of the full experience, and so i think sobel metworking is a brilliant invention in the history of technological inventions and communication, because it allows group-to-group communication in a really efficient way that other communication tools couldn't. now i don't have to wait to call my sister. i see her do it all the time. oops, post from lynn day. can believe they did that. right? and that launches a conversation. i think what most tv executives would say, the social phenomenon is fueling the golden age of television, playing a very important and complimentary role some providing new opportunities to make it better. >> host: do you think we'll be designing our own television experience through social media? might have your friends on the facebook page, whatever the new facebook is in 20 years -- they're saying you should be watching honey boo-boo and this
8:08pm
championship show, and this food show, and i have managed to link them all up and just click on my page and whether they're doing it through piracy or doing it through purchasing or this is the way programmers are suddenly connecting to more viewers and get their licensing through that. >> guest: yes, but some of it i think takes probably longer and is more complex than we think. i also think we shouldn't assume lightly all of that will be enjoyable to consumers. i think you magazine see other consumer backlash with i'm being too intimately tracked, being too stalked, and the presidential election of 2012, i began to feel creepy. the degree to which political indicates, with their big databases, were hunting my every month, and at some point i
8:09pm
believe it crosses a chasism in which you feel a discomfort the degree to which you're being watched and tracked. that's what the privacy debate is about. where is the balance before it gets to the croppy factor you don't like. so metta data and big data will make that responsibility. let the consumer response is far from clear, and the last thing i'll say they're already doing a version of that. a lot of people plop on the couch, turn on the tv and open their ipad or laptop and they're having dual screen experiences and they're not watching the show. they are doing something that they find complimentary to what they're doing. it may be christmas shopping but also may be -- when the show "24" was on, my favorite thing to do was to watch the show while watching the "24" blogs
8:10pm
because there war so many hidden things happening, it was fun to have someone say did you notice jack fell 40 feet but walked back up the stairs three flights. funny parts of the show. i found it enjoyable. my wife found it odd. >> host: michael powell, with the tracking, when you look at the future of tv and advertise, what do you see? 30-second ad going away? are we going to see a new mode of advertising? >> guest: well, i think the president already answered that. the new mode of advertising is there. when i was talking a moment ago about the stalking, you're talking about whatever the purpose is for, whether for political purposes or selling a product, the ability to track and create a composite of me and
8:11pm
my preferences and my travel through the digital media, certainly has created a form of advertising that has a high degree of metrics and specificity in a way that television advertising never did. television advertising is a great thing to a degree but always been an odd thing. if you're procter and gamle and you run an ad, it's hard for you know how much the ad works. you ran it. some creative group says you did great job, you love the looks of it. do you rub out and do consumer surveys to see if people were impacted? the net provides more real-time answers to return on investment questions, and i think you see advertisers chasing a lot of digital advertising because they learn more about the effectiveness of their messages. but don't count the tv ad as dead. it has to become more entertaining, and when it does, it's minitv, and it's hilarious that the super bowl is as much a
8:12pm
parade of television advertising experience as it is a football game. why? because that's the day that advertisers go for it all. they put their best creative and most interesting ideas. what i think is starting to happen is the super bowl is expanding. if you want me to buy doritos, okay, in july, you're going to have to start showing me stuff -- it's a really fragment attention span that capture monday like the super bowl. and maybe you don't have to pay super bowl prices to get on, but as for as entertainment value you have to get my son, whose world is so infected with media, how do you get out of the noise flow and get his attention? humor, other things that make thing go viral. you got to get him out of the big base. >> host: still talking about
8:13pm
mass media advertising, though, on television. do you think maybe not in ten years but 20 years, at which point cable operators can serve up individually targeted ads ado viewers based on what shows they have been watching, the way the internet can track where you have been? >> guest: i think the short answer is there will be no technical limitations of being able to do that. it will be a behavioral decision whether to do that or that relationship with your consumer your comfortable or not. right now, that's exactly what happens on the web. if i go to amazon right now, or if i go to cnn news.com, or c-span.com, and you do it at exactly the same time, we very well may not see the exact same advertisement. if you go to aol.com i guarantee you we will not see the same. so when you think about, where is tv going? back to our first point.
8:14pm
software, i.p., metta data. the line between tv distribution and internet distribution becomes a lot fuzzier, what you're able to do in the internet model you certainly will be able to do -- even if the cable model is proprietary or private to some degree, the basic mechanisms will still be there. we could know if it doesn't creep you out, what you're watching at the moment, who is doing the watching. xbox has an application out that they're experimenting with which, when you walk into the room, the kinect system knows it's you and not your son. that's fascinating, but the minute you can do that, if my son is watching tv, you could change what he sees. it's a simple step. so i do think you'll get there. the question is, in the dialogue between producers and consumers, where is the comfort level?
8:15pm
that's more important. >> host: sounds leak you're thinking more about the comfort level and creepiness than maybe netflix is with the new push for privacy act which allows you to give permission once as a consumer to share your information with apparently anybody. it could be from facebook is their initial push. but get your permission, they can track you in ways you might find creepy. maybe the facebook thing is creepy. do you think that -- different about the cable culture that has you thinking about the creepiness factor? >> guest: i like that question. sometimes you are where you came from. and there's a lot convergence going on in cable tv. what cable does, and facebook and google, it's getting more like this than this. but the reality is they come from very different foundational places. we have a very secure, trusted,
8:16pm
expensive relationship with the consumer. we take your money and we know that doesn't -- when you're at the point of sale, one, there's always a certain grumpiness about that. i'm the guy that asked you to send your money in today. i come into your home. literally. physically. i have a guy who comes into your home to install something. i have a relationship with you that depends on a really high degree of trust so you find that subdescription worth paying every month. i have to protect your comfort with that relationship to a much greater degree than i think some of the tech companies have, too. the internet at one point hatt had more experimentation with the subscription model. most of the internet has blown
8:17pm
past that. we don't do rfs, anymore to web pages, very few products are offered in subscription unless you're an organization like "new york times." most of it is just who lands here for what purpose. i get paid if you push the click. i don't get paid if you don't push the click. i don't care whether you like it -- i hate to say it but at some level don't care whether you like what there is or not as long as you do the things that cause the monetary machine to turn over. and that's a very different approach to the consumer than we're required to have, and i think we're a culture that is more conservative. about that. than most cultures. mark zuckerberg, one of the great pioneers, many of them fromol a philosophical standpoint that information was men to be free and they're in
8:18pm
this never-ending battle with governmental forces about where the line is, because i think they're very comfort able with the very thin line. i understand the argue. but i don't know that's going to comport with moe people. >> host: michael paul, lynn brought up micropurchasing and one of the hit shows is downton abbey. if people want to purchase that on amazon or netflix, they can, and they can watch the series and they don't have to have subscription tv. you can do that with home lean or another series. how is this ability to micropurchase going to affect the cable industry in the next five or ten years? >> i'm not entirely sure but i'll tell you some things. when this first started, when itunes struck a deal with is in any and others and people
8:19pm
predicted the end of television or people predicted tivo and up anding commercials -- i think we have seen the appetite for television more dramatically stimulated, not retarded. it's actually the opposite. i think it's because, if i'm able -- somebody comes to me today and says, have you ever seen breaking bad? my answer would be, no. oh, you really should see this show. i should? yeah, it's great. and by the way, what i'm really saying to you, you're my friend and i want to talk to you about it. what i can do now is go home and put itunes -- i don't know if that show is there, so forgive me the specifics -- i can go to itunes or hulu or ruku or the network site itself and i can catch up and go back to you tomorrow as my friend and say, you know what?
8:20pm
-- you hear this conversation every day. i got through the first season over the christmas holiday. now we can talk. but by the way, i'm dying for the first episode of downton abbey, season three, right? totally fell in love with the series. did not watch the first season in its original run. but when i got tuned into it, because everybody is talking about it, i sat there and plowed through it, fell in love with it. watched the second season, because we wanted to be in the come tell brainous conversation, and it was so good. who wanted to go that long and not see it? and right now i'd give anything to have my hands on season three, no matter what their timetable is. and i think what we often don't talk about is the windows element of content. right? the key is, everything now is available to everyone somewhere. the really only issue is, when and for how much?
8:21pm
if you want to wait -- if you were willing to watch everything you want to watch, nine to12 months late center you could watch away. but the thing is, i don't think we're that patient about it. the average viewer is not that patient. why? you don't get to be in the conversation. and you're snubbed estimating the power of that conversation. and so -- you're underestimating the power of that conversation. so certain marquee series? yes, you can go back. i have never met a friend who didn't see, have you seen the wire? if you let the sun set on your life and you did not watch one of the most brilliantly written series in the history of television, i'd say shame on you i know friends who go back and plow through five seasons of that. why? because the cultural references and the power of what happened there has made its way into what
8:22pm
it means to be up on cultural things. so, depends on the show. there's some shows i guarantee you, my wife loves -- if two weeks go by and i don't see it, it's gone. i'm not going to go back dish love parenthood, it's a great show. if i miss it, two or three weeks in a row, i rarely would go back and pick it up. but other shows i couldn't possibly not. it's the nature of consumers. >> host: the cost of programming keeps rising for members, especially sports programming. when do you think we reach a point where that driver starts to exceed the ability of the broad masses of people to pay for it? >> guest: i think this is the billion dollar question and i tell you i think different leaders have different views about when that is. the one thing you can't really
8:23pm
argue with -- by the way, even if you were could concede that all sides are being rationale. for example, depressant think you need to make anybody a villain to have this conversation factually, but if you just took sports -- by the way, other programming costs, you look at theirs rise over time and the rise in subscription revenue growth over time and you see this happening, and happening for the foreseeable future. maybe that -- and the operator has very little choice to either absorb -- which hey have been doing -- or pass on to consumers who are still recovering from a painful recession, first and foremost. is there a point at which they say, i can't handle it anymore? there's no more ability to absorb these costs and the whole model has a problem. i can't control the nfl has the power to demand 72% increase, which i find astonishing.
8:24pm
i can't believe alex rodriguez makes $250 million a year to play baseball. but he does. and by the way, there are enough americans with an intensity of passion about these things, you go to new york, i have yankee family members who would pay half their mortgage to go see the yankees in the world series. it's just a reality of the value of something that gets pushed through the system. but we all ought to wake up and be careful, i think, programmers and operators, about how we manage our relationship with each other and out half the fiduciary responsibility the consumer so we don't blow this into smither evens and invite the government to do it for you, which nobody would be a winner. >> host: michael paul, scott -- the vice president of cisco, predictions on the future of tv.
8:25pm
channels will go away, remotes will go away, and we will have screens everywhere. what is your reaction those predictions and how does that fable the current cable business model? >> we will have screens everywhere. i'm not so sure we don't already have screens everywhere. the typical american household still has three tvs and probably growing. when i walk to work in the morning, the video screens on the sides of bus terminals. they're in metro centers. they're everywhere. i think we'll see them more and more and more. so that prediction is an easy one to subscribe to. i don't know that it means to say there are no channels -- i don't know what that means. i'm not sure i do agree with that. i'm not sure i know what he means. but any system of content requires some organizational scheme. you don't go home and take your
8:26pm
kitchen drawer and to all the stuff in a big basket. you put your knives in a holder and your spoons, -- i hope. but organization and curation is itself an art, and the idea that this mashed up cacophony is a virtue i don't agree with. i think actually we have lost the art of curation in some of our zeal around the internet elm always say this the way i say it to friends and family about photos. in my adult life, i can -- i've probably taken hundreds of thousands of pictures in a way i couldn't have on previous technology. digital cam razz, cell phones, all this stuff. sometimes we download them to the computer, instance creasingly we don't. i go and look at my iphoto account. there are thousand of pictures there, increasingly make no
8:27pm
sense to me. i'll tell you what, when i'm 80 years old and sitting on the couch, and want to look back over the meaning of my life, it isn't going to be to open up a computer and plow through 14,000 photographs. it's going to be the specialness of opening an album that someone has carefully selected, the representative moments of when i was seven and 12 and when my mother took me to the zoo. that's where humans derive meaning. i think the art of curation and editorial discussion is still worth fighting for, because i don't believe, like citizens -- the tech nor ore gas mick view does that somehow infinitely massive amounts of information is nirvana. i think people want simplicity and want some control that has meaning for them. now, television, through channels, is able to kind of
8:28pm
parochially separate, are you in the mood for history? i can tell you where to do that. are you in the mood to learn how to make christmas dinner tonight? i can tell you where to go to do that. some version of that. whether its the traditional channeling i think has to exist. on the remote control, i'll be the first one to like to throw mine, but that's why, because what he really means is we'll interface differently but we'll have to interfess. it's still a machine and you're a human being. and until somehow we're exactly the same thing -- which i don't have any hope for -- i have to communicate my needs to this device. i'm either going to have to touch it, speak to it, push a button, do something. so, that will be the remote control, whether -- it's not going to be what you see today but there is going to be some mechanism by which i talk to a machine and the machine understands me. >> host: we have been talking about the future of television with michael powell, president
8:29pm
and ceo of the national cable and tell communications association, and lynn standon, senior editor of telecommunications reports. thank you. >> on c-span2 tonight, look at the 2012 election. first, discussion on latino voter. followed by the secretaries of state of ohio and west virginia talking about voter i.d. laws and later, a look at problems on voting day. >> on tomorrow morning's washington gorgeous -- washington journal, we continue a look at the fiscal cliff and what happens if those cuts take place in january. after that, charles clark of the government executive media group, looks at the domestic program cuts. and then more about the issue with is bell sawhill